Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with the cabinet secretary that the Court of Session ruling was a demonstration of the fundamental flaws of devolution.

Of equal note is that last Friday will have been disappointing and traumatic for many. Will the Scottish Government give an unequivocal commitment to continue to do all that it can to support the community? What assurances can the cabinet secretary give today that any decision in relation to the ruling will be treated with the utmost sensitivity?

First and foremost, I express my profound regret at the sad news from this morning about the loss of life aboard the Bibby Stockholm. I offer my condolences to the family and friends of the asylum seeker whose life was lost.

As a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, I often witness the tireless work of organisations and individuals to embed humanity into policy, and I am consistently reminded of the profound responsibility that we hold. The stories of asylum seekers in Scotland, as detailed in the recent human rights report, are not just abstract accounts; they are vivid realities that demand our attention and action. The work that we undertook to gather people’s real-life experiences on a personal level will stay with me forever.

I have been thinking about how easy it is to take it for granted that we live in a country free from conflict, and about what would happen if that ever changed. How would the world react to us if we ever needed to flee and seek refuge? Perhaps that thought is more profound at this time of year, coming up to Christmas, knowing that, across the country, many children will be re-enacting a very familiar story of a family and their unborn child seeking refuge.

The lived experiences of asylum seekers, as highlighted in the committee’s report, must guide our policies. Each individual brings a story—a narrative of loss, resilience and hope. Those are not mere tales; they are a reflection of our shared humanity.

The UK Government’s approach to immigration not only lacks compassion; it denies the rights of, and dehumanises, those seeking refuge, as they are entitled to do under article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On Sunday, we celebrated the 75th anniversary of that declaration, and next year will mark 70 years since the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees came into force.

A Conservative minister recently made the assertion that asylum seekers risking their lives crossing the Channel had “no excuse” and were “breaking into our country”. That is not just insensitive—it is a stark dismissal of human rights. That is dog-whistle politics at its worst, and it serves only to marginalise further those vulnerable individuals who are seeking safety and refuge. It ignores the complex and often harrowing reasons that compel people to undertake such perilous journeys.

Our response should be inclusive and supportive, not merely tolerant. For example, the need for mental health services is critical, as is underscored in the committee’s report. Many asylum seekers carry the scars of trauma and require culturally sensitive and accessible mental health care. Similarly, the importance of language assistance cannot be overstated. As has been noted, many asylum seekers struggle with language barriers, which hinder their ability to integrate and to access vital services.

We should consider the potential of concessionary travel for all asylum seekers, a policy that embodies dignity and freedom, allowing them to explore and to integrate into our communities. That is not just about policy; it is about sending a clear message: “You are a part of our society, and you are welcome.”

It was plain to see that the core need for the provision of accurate information was essential. Asylum seekers must be aware of their rights, particularly in healthcare and legal services. That is not just a policy imperative; it is a moral one. It ensures that everyone who arrives in Scotland is treated with the respect and care that they deserve. Our approach must be rooted in kindness, empathy and a commitment to human rights. Every policy and every number represents a human story that deserves to be heard and acted upon.

We can lead by example and show the power of compassion in asylum and immigration policies. We must not be swayed by political pressures or bureaucratic convenience. Instead, let our actions be guided by the warmth of our humanity and the strength of our convictions. We need a distinctly Scottish path—one that is marked by understanding and by respect for human dignity. For example, that path could take the form of a new humanitarian strategy, as proposed by the Scottish Refugee Council, emphasising a “protect not penalise” approach, with anti-poverty and mental health initiatives to address the threats posed by serious and organised crime.

Although immigration and asylum remain reserved matters, there is much that we can do within our devolved powers. We can find innovative accommodation solutions, extend support to third sector organisations and ensure access to essential services such as ESOL and healthcare.

As I conclude, I ask for our response to asylum seekers to be more than only a policy one: it must reflect our values as a society. It is about building a future in which compassion and human dignity are the foundations of our approach to those who seek sanctuary on our shores. As we move forward, we must remember that our policies and words have the power both to uplift and to harm. Let us choose kindness and respect and let us reaffirm our commitment to being a society that welcomes, supports and values every human life, regardless of where they come from or where the journey that they endured to reach us began.

I would like to hear views on the rural support plan. I note from some of the written statements in evidence that people have commented on the detail that might be in that plan and what they think ministers should have regard to. Ross Paton mentioned land reform, for example. I would like to kick off with those views.

Could you give a specific timeframe? How long do you think is long enough for that planning?

Minister, is there any risk in amending the bill to give the Lord President additional powers? For example, the proposal to amend section 29 would give the Lord President the sole right to consider

“applications by bodies wishing to enter the legal services sector as new regulators”.

Is there a risk that the Lord President might be either too conservative or too slow in deciding which bodies could become new regulators?

Do you think that the proposed transfer of certain functions to the Lord President alters the general principles of the bill?

Members of the judiciary have raised concerns that transferring functions to the Lord President risks politicising his role. Others have said that transferring functions might mean that consumer groups will not have enough say. What is your position on that?

That is helpful. Thank you, minister.

It is a privilege to talk on this subject. It is no secret to the Parliament that campaigning for human rights is a deep passion of mine, mostly because of the experiences that I have had throughout my life and the experiences of those I love. To be honest, I have to pinch myself some days in the knowledge that I have the privilege of being a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which is a role that I deeply appreciate having.

I whole-heartedly support the motion and, in particular, I recognise the importance of understanding the dire consequences that the Covid-19 pandemic and the cost of living crisis have had and continue to have on human rights for all of us. The impact is exceptionally significant on those who are living with disabilities.

The reopening of the independent living fund, along with the commitment to develop and implement an immediate priorities plan for disabled people, marks a significant step forward. It is heartening to see the Scottish Government taking concrete actions to address the pressing issues, which reinforces our ambition to lead the world in human rights realisation.

People with disabilities face not just financial but societal challenges, which affect access to public services, general mobility and connectivity, community cohesion and—consequently—the basic human interactions that we need for our health and wellbeing. Without adequate support, dealing with that challenge can leave a person feeling isolated and abandoned in a world in which they should feel that they belong.

One aspect of the motion that resonates in particular with me is the acknowledgement of the need for social and cultural rights for people with disabilities. As members know, my father is deaf. That has shaped my understanding of what aspects are needed for a whole-person approach to disabilities. I was raised alongside deaf children and CODAs—children of deaf adults. I have to agree with the comments of my colleague Kate Forbes on dignity and having less patronising attitudes. Being an interpreter for my father over the years has been enlightening—but not in a good way, as we have been faced with ignorance from many parts of society.

I was surrounded by a visually vibrant and expressive community. I will paint a picture of the deaf club in Aberdeen. The incredible building in which it was held was a place of drama clubs and sports clubs, with shelves of trophies and pictures of successes adorning the walls. There was an integrated church and a large kitchen that was used regularly for events. There were snooker tables and bowling mats, and a stage in a hall where signing musical shows and comedy shows were held and performed by deaf people and hearing people alike. Deaf people from all over the UK would come to visit and participate in events. I particularly loved meeting deaf Santa there one year as a wee girl.

The club was a haven for deaf people where they were not just supported; they were given the tools to support themselves—and they ran with it. It was a thriving community with a beautiful language. Sadly, the club had to close its doors over a decade ago. I hope that we can realise the importance of such community spaces. Inclusion in the wider world is important, but ensuring that there are safe spaces in which communities can gather and organise is equally important.

The beautiful language that I speak of—British Sign Language—was one that my dad would be physically punished for using when he was a wee boy in the 1950s. He was forced to conform to the idealised version of an able-bodied person. His parents and peers supported him to learn BSL, and watched him thrive. He was often one of the funniest actors in the comedy shows—according to me.

I often think of what it must have been like for my wee dad back in the 1950s. In my interactions with deaf charities and stakeholders, the conversation often revolves around the need for early and effective support for deaf children. Ensuring that those children have access to the necessary language and communication skills is crucial for their development and future success. That aligns with the broader goal of disability equality, whereby equal opportunities are provided to all children, regardless of their abilities.

Today’s motion, with its emphasis on equality of opportunity and the inclusion of social and cultural rights, is a step towards bridging the gap between the disabled and the able bodied. By incorporating international human rights conventions into Scots law, particularly those recognising sign languages and deaf culture, we are making our society more inclusive and richer.

As we move forward, it is crucial that we continue to engage with and listen to the disabled community. Its insights and expertise are invaluable in shaping policies that truly address its needs and aspirations. That approach ensures that our efforts are not just top down but are informed by those who are directly impacted by our decisions.

Enshrining those rights will not only make our society and culture more accessible; the inclusion of deaf people and people with experiences that are different from our own and which we can learn from and appreciate will make our society and culture altogether richer. I am sure that all of us in the chamber have a keen desire to be part of the solutions for improving the lives of disabled folk in Scotland. That is certainly one of my core inspirations for being here.

I am proud to support the motion and the principles that it sets out. By celebrating disability equality and human rights, we are not just complying with international standards; we are working towards a society in which every individual is valued, respected and given the opportunity to thrive. The motion is a testament to our commitment to creating a Scotland that is inclusive, just and equitable for all. Most important of all, realising those rights will help to deliver dignity for all those who live with disabilities in Scotland. After all, my childhood was not impaired by having a deaf father; it was enriched. I hope that others across Scotland and beyond can feel that enrichment, too.

First, I thank Beatrice Wishart and congratulate her on bringing the debate to the chamber. I know that she has a deep commitment to serving her island constituents.

I am grateful to speak on a matter of vital importance to Scotland, in particular for rural and coastal communities such as those that I represent in Banffshire and Buchan Coast. Although—I admit—we are not an island, there are threads of the same theme of connectivity running through. The coastal aspect of rural living adds an extra dimension, which raises issues that must receive proportional attention in Parliament.

Although we are here to acknowledge the significance of connectivity in Scotland’s rural and island areas, I also acknowledge the Parliament’s commitment to Scotland’s net zero targets, as it is essential that our actions align with those environmental aspirations.

The essence of my address today is the importance of local decision-making in infrastructure projects. Our rural and coastal communities, each with a unique set of needs and challenges, must have a say in the projects that directly impact their lives. Whether that involves implementing fixed links such as tunnels or enhancing other transport services, the voice of the local community is paramount. When local communities are at the forefront of such decisions, it not only ensures that the solutions are tailored to their needs, but instils a sense of ownership and commitment to the success of the projects.

Safety and economic vitality are at the heart of our concerns. Connectivity is not just a matter of convenience—it is a lifeline that supports local economies and tourism and ensures the safety of our residents.

In that context, I highlight the exemplary work—which I take any chance to plug—of the Campaign for North East Rail. As an ardent supporter of CNER, I have raised its work in the chamber previously, and I met the former Minister for Transport, Jenny Gilruth, to discuss the transformative impact of re-railing the north-east.

The Scottish Government’s allocation of funds from the just transition fund for CNER’s feasibility study marks a significant step forward. It awarded CNER £0.25 million pounds from the fund, and the feasibility study has made great leaps forward in the past few months, with the appointment of world-leading consultancy firms AECOM and Stantec to explore the possibility of passenger and freight services running north of Dyce and onwards to Peterhead and Fraserburgh for the first time in more than half a century.

My office’s recent conversation with Jordan Jack, the general secretary of CNER, highlighted the campaign’s focus on collaboration with local interest groups. That approach, which aligns with the former transport secretary’s advice, ensures that our efforts in improving transport infrastructure are inclusive and community driven.